Our Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment for this? They gave us freedom of the press to oppress decent citizens? Come on! And the old media organs like newspapers wonder why they're LOSING circulation (i.e. customers)...

Illegal, technically no. It doesn't quite meet the standard of "inciting" violence, but it certainly invites it, doesn't it? I hope it meets the standards of civil liability though, that would close the paper's doors for good.

This is what ideological extremists do with their freedom; they use it to hurt those who don't bow to them, any way they can. They don't care who dies.

There was a British documentary here in the UK years ago on the increase of drugs and side-effects (homicidal and suicidal tendencies). Main stream media never really touched this again. I doubt they would as the industry generates a lot of money.

And the main reason behind the increase in these drugs is... well this video words it better than I ever could.

Wrong. We're not rewarding, nor are we breeding mental illness or violence.

The reason why you might think that is is due to the belief that we're over-medicated. Not necessarily true. We're learning so much about the mind and body at such a rapid pace now, that we're figuring out diseases and cures for diseases that weren't even problems yet, as well as everything about diseases we've come to know and loathe. More and more drugs that can save lives are in the development phase right now, such as a vaccine for breast cancer: http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Breast-Cancer-Vaccine-100-effective-in-mice-Waiting-for-human-trials-173738701.html. But there's also so much that we don't know, so there can be misdiagnoses or too much or too little medication for people who need the right amount. It is also up to the patient to try to describe what is going on as accurately as possible to give the doctor a better diagnosis. For example, let's say I go into the office with some chest pains but I tell him I have a migraine. He might get me some painkillers, but I've died of a heart attack in the office before he could finish writing the prescription. Obviously a silly example, but I think that explains why there could be a misdiagnosis, and a potentially wrong medication, potential over-medication, etc. It's not just one side's fault.

As for violence, violence has declined since 1991. The reasons? More police, more criminals in prison, the waning crack epidemic and legalized abortion. The first two and the final one bring about problems of their own, but violence is not one of them. Here is a report by Professor Steven D. Levitt of the University of Chicago to explain how these elements came together to reduce the amount of crime: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf. There can be other elements out there, but those seem to be the major factors to contribute to the steady decline in violence.

Professor Levitt posited a theory, for which he provided some compelling evidence. However he acknowledges that there ARE "other elements," and that he has not studied them. I respect the man because he has the mind of a true scientist - he doesn't mistake opinions for facts, no matter how he feels about them.

We do breed and reward violence. We raise our children with little emotional stability, little supervision, and very few consequences for bad behavior. Being sheltered from negative consequences, is a reward for negative behavior, which happens to include all kinds of violence.

Are you familiar with the "Narcissism Epidemic?" It seems that people who grow up thinking they are super special snowflakes who can do no wrong, are highly prone to depression and anxiety. Depression and anxiety frequently contribute to violence, often with the added complications of alcohol and recreational drug use. The best treatment for most mental illnesses, is a combination of drugs, counselling, and behavior modification. Yet far too often, drugs are used with little or no counselling and behavior modification. I think it's safe to say that the pharmaceutical industry profits from "partially" treated mental illness, more than it profits from fully treated mental illness.

I will also point out that the number of reported violent crimes, is not an accurate measure of the amount of violence in our society. Those many prisons you mentioned, are packed full of violent people daily committing violence that goes unreported, people who have never learned how NOT to be violent. The fact that those violent people are not contributing to violence STATISTICS, does not mean there are fewer violent people in our culture. Indeed, the fact that we NEED so many cops and so many prisons, is very much an indication that our society breeds and rewards violence. We just do a pretty good job of storing it in warehouses, neatly out of sight of people who think that DOJ statistics answer all of the questions about violence, which anybody ever needs to ask.

Since you signed yourself as "Anonymous," I don't know who you are, but I'm guessing you're rather young and not well trained in critical thinking. It's not difficult to train yourself, by the way. All you have to do is keep asking, "Why?" and never accept answers at face value. That's not what they teach you in school, is it? "Why" is most teachers' least favorite word; it's a sign of independent thought, and is usually accompanied by a disruption in the carefully choreographed routine. Not the first "Why?" mind you, but the next "Why?" the one that challenges their rehearsed explanations.

I think the biggest problem with scientists today is that either they are too arrogant or run by corporation whose ultimate motive is to make as much money even if it means breaking the law if it is cost effective. And in most cases they can get away with it. In the UK, Vaccines liabilities are covered by government. And it seems banks are also covered. And you say we are not rewarding criminal behaviour?

Corporate Greed + Political Greed = Match made in hell.

No one here will deny that society is becoming more arrogant, narcissistic, greedy, corrupt, callous and broken. If all these measurements are going up I doubt violence is going down. Though intellectual elites like Stephen Pinker and ilk, think we are living in a less violent world, all I say is they are living in an intellectual bubble.

And as to ill behaviour as well as criminal, you should go to certain council estates and see how safe you are at night. One illegitimate child = one council house. 3-4 illegitimate children = Council house with garden. Most of the violence in our world is done against children who grow up to be adults. We don’t have a large enough prison to hold all the parents who abuse them. Largest group would be biological mothers which would never happen as it is Political suicide and not PC.

UK: Around 70% of the prison population is functionally illiterate. Around 10% would be classified as mentally retarded. About 80% come from broken homes. About 90% of all rapists come from single mother homes. About 20% of the UK population is functionally illiterate.

If you hand out money for certain ill behaviour, do not be surprised to see it increase. This includes the DV industry and Divorce Industry. It reminds me of the child agency. UK Government changed the law so money is rewarded for each child that gets adopted, and lo and behold, suddenly a multi-fold increase of babies and young children are being taken away from parents and forced into adoption. It would come as no surprise that infants and young kids are much easier to adopt as they are always in high demand. Who says we do not reward violence?

One last thing, I am 110% against the DV industry and it is an industry. I am pro-healing and counselling of violent couples and parents. It is within human nature to lash out at each other and an ill-bred society the lashing out would be more frequent. Within family it should be treated as a social problem that requires healing and not criminal charges. Unless it is extreme or life threatening violence within families should be treated and families reconciled. Taking away children from biological parents should be last resort. And if couples are willing to forgive what business is it of the state to interfere. It will cost the tax payer less money in both the long and short run and it will keep the vile vultures (lawyers) out of work.

This is all public information. Any one of us could have gotten this information, on top of floor plans to virtually any public building, who's been arrested for what and when, people's taxes, etc. The newspaper did the work for us and people went up in arms. Once again, this was obtained LEGALLY. Maybe this was the paper's intention, in order to strike a debate as to what should and should not be public.

We had that problem here in Iowa. Two years ago, we went to shall issue for carry permits. One of the local rags decided it would be a good idea to publish every permit holders name that lived in Polk County (home of Des Moines).

That was the most distributed copy of their paper ever. Of course what they didn't realize was that we went around and collected every copy we could find. They ended up in dumpsters all over town.

Then we did our research and published the names of all the owners, publisher, reporters and even the office help. We then sent them a very polite message that if they did that again, we knew who they were and where they lived.

The "Goose/Gander" article published only a handful of home addresses, and I sent a short letter to each one. I hope those "journalists" receive hundreds of letters, and I hope their spouses and children see those letters. I also hope that lots of local 2A people get in their cars and drive through those "journalists'" neighborhoods. If this makes anybody nervous, that's their own problem.